Using software testing to move students from trial-and-error to reflection-in-action

ABSTRACT

Introductory computer science students rely on a trial and error approach to fixing errors and debugging for too long. Moving to a reflection in action strategy can help students become more successful. Traditional programming assignments are usually assessed in a way that ignores the skills needed for reflection in action, but software testing promotes the hypothesis-forming and experimental validation that are central to this mode of learning. By changing the way assignments are assessed--where students are responsible for demonstrating correctness through testing, and then assessed on how well they achieve this goal--it is possible to reinforce desired skills. Automated feedback can also play a valuable role in encouraging students while also showing them where they can improve.

REFERENCES

• 1: Eric Allen , Robert Cartwright , Brian Stoler, DrJava: a lightweight pedagogic environment for Java, Proceedings of the 33rd SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, February 27-March 03, 2002, Cincinnati, Kentucky
• 2: Beck, Test Driven Development: By Example, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 2002
• 3: Joseph Bergin , Jim Roberts , Richard Pattis , Mark Stehlik, Karel++: A Gentle Introduction to the Art of Object-Oriented Programming, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1996
• 4: Duane Buck , David J. Stucki, Design early considered harmful: graduated exposure to complexity and structure based on levels of cognitive development, Proceedings of the thirty-first SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, p.75-79, March 07-12, 2000, Austin, Texas, United States
• 5: Duane Buck , David J. Stucki, JKarelRobot: a case study in supporting levels of cognitive development in the computer science curriculum, Proceedings of the thirty-second SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer Science Education, p.16-20, February 2001, Charlotte, North Carolina, United States
• 6: James Comer , Robert Roggio, Teaching a Java-based CS1 course in an academically-diverse environment, Proceedings of the 33rd SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, February 27-March 03, 2002, Cincinnati, Kentucky
• 7: Cortex, Inc. Clover: a code coverage tool for Java. Web page accessed Mar. 21, 2003: http://www.thecortex.net/clover/
• 8: Rick Decker , Stuart Hirshfield, The top 10 reasons why object-oriented programming can't be taught in CS 1, Proceedings of the twenty-fifth SIGCSE symposium on Computer science education, p.51-55, March 10-12, 1994, Phoenix, Arizona, United States
• 9: Stephen H. Edwards, Rethinking computer science education from a test-first perspective, Companion of the 18th annual ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object-oriented programming, systems, languages, and applications, October 26-30, 2003, Anaheim, CA, USA [doi>10.1145/949344.949390]
• 10: JUnit Home Page. Web page last accessed Mar. 21, 2003: http://www.junit.org/
• 11: Kölling, M. BlueJ--The Interactive Java Environment. Web page, last accessed Mar. 21, 2003: http://www.bluej.org/
• 12: Kenneth L. Krause , Robert E. Sampsell , Samuel L. Grier, Computer science in the Air Force Academy core curriculum, Proceedings of the thirteenth SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, p.144-146, February 11-12, 1982, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
• 13: Schön, D. The Reflecting Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. London: Temple Smith, 1983.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  K. Computing Milieux
  K.3 COMPUTERS AND EDUCATION
      K.3.2 Computer and Information Science Education

Additional Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
      D.2.5 Testing and Debugging
          Subjects: Testing tools (e.g., data generators, coverage testing)

General Terms:
Verification

Keywords:
CS1, automated grading, extreme programming, pedagogy, test-driven development